Current Events > Honestly, if the dems had chosen a better candidate instead of Hillary

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
CarlGrimes 06/13/18 4:19:12 AM #51:	Barenziah Boy Toy posted... CarlGrimes posted... No, I want it to be more fair. How is giving empty land disproportionate representation more fair? How is letting someone who has never left their little city bubble have a say over the rest of the country fair. And don't act like you give a shit bout democracy, your nominee fucking bought her place and your party. What is democratic about that? --- You'll get a funeral if you don't wise up and call me....Carl Poppa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aM9Ch97U8 <cite>CarlGrimes posted [p:903143892] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CarlGrimes posted...</cite> <quote>No, I want it to be more fair.</quote> How is giving empty land disproportionate representation more fair?</quote> How is letting someone who has never left their little city bubble have a say over the rest of the country fair. And don't act like you give a shit bout democracy, your nominee fucking bought her place and your party. What is democratic about that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 06/13/18 4:19:37 AM #52:	Ivany2008 posted... If he stopped the war with North Korea, then he will be elected once again. Which is fucking ridiculous because it was Trump that escalated the chances of war to begin with. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:903143907] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ivany2008 posted...</cite> <quote>If he stopped the war with North Korea, then he will be elected once again. </quote> Which is fucking ridiculous because it was Trump that escalated the chances of war to begin with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 06/13/18 4:20:14 AM #53:	CarlGrimes posted... How is letting someone who has never left their little city bubble have a say over the rest of the country fair. They DON'T have a say more than anyone else. One person. One vote. Right now, Rural voters have a DISPROPORTIONATE SAY over everyone else. We want EVERYONE to have a PROPORTIONATE say. Fairness = city dweller, and farmer having AN EQUAL amount of say. 10 City Dwellers should have the same exact say as 10 Farmers, or 10 factory workers, or 10 billionaires. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:903143926] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>CarlGrimes posted...</cite> <quote>How is letting someone who has never left their little city bubble have a say over the rest of the country fair.</quote> They DON'T have a say more than anyone else. One person. One vote. Right now, Rural voters have a DISPROPORTIONATE SAY over everyone else. We want EVERYONE to have a PROPORTIONATE say. Fairness = city dweller, and farmer having AN EQUAL amount of say. 10 City Dwellers should have the same exact say as 10 Farmers, or 10 factory workers, or 10 billionaires.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kayoticdreamz 06/13/18 4:27:48 AM #54:	CrimsonRage posted... kayoticdreamz posted... yes, thats its purpose. its to prevent one city or state from overrepresenting the voting population. in essence if you have 100 people, and 50 live in one city, and the other 50 are scattered across 5 other cities, this makes it so the one big city can't completely dominate and dictate the voting process. though for being a bigger city, it would get a bigger percentage of the vote, but not so big that overwhelms everyone else. this is why electoral college > directly electing the president so rural areas get disproportionate power? i don't see how that's a better alternative. i mean, obviously it's a better alternative for Republicans since it's the only way they can win elections now, but don't act like it's a fair system. and how is giving TX, CA, and NY The majority voting power fair? here i'll tell you people what....think of another system that balances the voting better and we'll talk, but don't pretend by doing direct elections will make this anything resembling fair. Barenziah Boy Toy posted... AND NO, your fucking history sucks. The electoral college exists because America was still a small and weak nation and they wanted to recruit more territories. So they implemented the system in order to give disproportionate representation to new areas. Back in the day, there was no good reason to join the US without the US giving you a sweetheart deal. the founders gave us this system because they hated direct elections for everything. check your damn history, the founders created a republic, not a democracy. they wanted proportional representation to avoid giant cities and states getting too much power. if we just did direct elections across the board, places like new york and CA would basically overwhelm the entire election process, which given the fact democrats supported a candidate that bought and paid for her nominee, a fair election means nothing to democrats. the founders recognized the need for proportional representation, so that is why the house is the way it is, but they also saw the need for each state to be equal(else why should a state join the union???) so the senate covers that with 2 senators each. the presidency is balanced by giving states a proportional say so big places like CA, TX, and NY don't be the only places that matter in presidential elections. seriously....learn to math man. <cite>kayoticdreamz posted [p:903144124] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>CrimsonRage posted...</cite> <quote><cite>kayoticdreamz posted...</cite> <quote> yes, thats its purpose. its to prevent one city or state from overrepresenting the voting population. in essence if you have 100 people, and 50 live in one city, and the other 50 are scattered across 5 other cities, this makes it so the one big city can't completely dominate and dictate the voting process. though for being a bigger city, it would get a bigger percentage of the vote, but not so big that overwhelms everyone else. this is why electoral college > directly electing the president</quote> so rural areas get disproportionate power? i don't see how that's a better alternative. i mean, obviously it's a better alternative for Republicans since it's the only way they can win elections now, but don't act like it's a fair system.</quote> and how is giving TX, CA, and NY The majority voting power fair? here i'll tell you people what....think of another system that balances the voting better and we'll talk, but don't pretend by doing direct elections will make this anything resembling fair. <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted...</cite> <quote>AND NO, your fucking history sucks. The electoral college exists because America was still a small and weak nation and they wanted to recruit more territories. So they implemented the system in order to give disproportionate representation to new areas. Back in the day, there was no good reason to join the US without the US giving you a sweetheart deal.</quote> the founders gave us this system because they hated direct elections for everything. check your damn history, the founders created a republic, not a democracy. they wanted proportional representation to avoid giant cities and states getting too much power. if we just did direct elections across the board, places like new york and CA would basically overwhelm the entire election process, which given the fact democrats supported a candidate that bought and paid for her nominee, a fair election means nothing to democrats. the founders recognized the need for proportional representation, so that is why the house is the way it is, but they also saw the need for each state to be equal(else why should a state join the union???) so the senate covers that with 2 senators each. the presidency is balanced by giving states a proportional say so big places like CA, TX, and NY don't be the only places that matter in presidential elections. seriously....learn to math man.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ivany2008 06/13/18 4:27:58 AM #55:	Barenziah Boy Toy posted... Ivany2008 posted... If he stopped the war with North Korea, then he will be elected once again. Which is fucking ridiculous because it was Trump that escalated the chances of war to begin with. Na, as much as Trump is an asshole, ties with North Korea have been strained for a very long time. People don't seem to realise that history repeats itself, and that this has happened in the past either with the Clinton administration or the Bush Administration(Sr., not Jr.). N. Korea threatens the U.S, then talks about disarming their nukes, then makes a deal with the U.S or another country for more money and then repeats itself. <cite>Ivany2008 posted [p:903144131] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Ivany2008 posted...</cite> <quote>If he stopped the war with North Korea, then he will be elected once again. </quote> Which is fucking ridiculous because it was Trump that escalated the chances of war to begin with.</quote> Na, as much as Trump is an asshole, ties with North Korea have been strained for a very long time. People don't seem to realise that history repeats itself, and that this has happened in the past either with the Clinton administration or the Bush Administration(Sr., not Jr.). N. Korea threatens the U.S, then talks about disarming their nukes, then makes a deal with the U.S or another country for more money and then repeats itself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
008Zulu 06/13/18 4:31:52 AM #56:	It wouldn't have mattered who they chose. The Dems had been ignoring the middle of America for a long time, Middle America was tired of being ignored. --- Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer. <cite>008Zulu posted [p:903144232] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>It wouldn't have mattered who they chose. The Dems had been ignoring the middle of America for a long time, Middle America was tired of being ignored.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kayoticdreamz 06/13/18 4:32:14 AM #57:	Barenziah Boy Toy posted... CarlGrimes posted... How is letting someone who has never left their little city bubble have a say over the rest of the country fair. They DON'T have a say more than anyone else. One person. One vote. Right now, Rural voters have a DISPROPORTIONATE SAY over everyone else. We want EVERYONE to have a PROPORTIONATE say. Fairness = city dweller, and farmer having AN EQUAL amount of say. 10 City Dwellers should have the same exact say as 10 Farmers, or 10 factory workers, or 10 billionaires. what you're failing to grasp is that people from a city tend to be more alike. think of NY vs TX. those people are more likely to vote in a similar way based on where they are from and the same shared values of that state. however you need to factor in the numbers game. you cannot have 10 of X and 10 of Y and 50 of Z and say everyone gets 1 vote. the 50 of Z will dominate every single time. which given the fact democrats are still trying impeach trump, they probably want this as they are still salty that they lost with a candidate that ironically bought and paid for her nominee(true democracy at work folks) if you proportion this out, the 50 Z no longer curbstomp X and Y. its about managing voter blocks and giving blocks fairness. its why i say NY, CA, and TX would under a direct election system become the only places that matter. <cite>kayoticdreamz posted [p:903144239] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CarlGrimes posted...</cite> <quote>How is letting someone who has never left their little city bubble have a say over the rest of the country fair.</quote> They DON'T have a say more than anyone else. One person. One vote. Right now, Rural voters have a DISPROPORTIONATE SAY over everyone else. We want EVERYONE to have a PROPORTIONATE say. Fairness = city dweller, and farmer having AN EQUAL amount of say. 10 City Dwellers should have the same exact say as 10 Farmers, or 10 factory workers, or 10 billionaires.</quote> what you're failing to grasp is that people from a city tend to be more alike. think of NY vs TX. those people are more likely to vote in a similar way based on where they are from and the same shared values of that state. however you need to factor in the numbers game. you cannot have 10 of X and 10 of Y and 50 of Z and say everyone gets 1 vote. the 50 of Z will dominate every single time. which given the fact democrats are still trying impeach trump, they probably want this as they are still salty that they lost with a candidate that ironically bought and paid for her nominee(true democracy at work folks) if you proportion this out, the 50 Z no longer curbstomp X and Y. its about managing voter blocks and giving blocks fairness. its why i say NY, CA, and TX would under a direct election system become the only places that matter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 06/13/18 4:36:41 AM #58:	kayoticdreamz posted... what you're failing to grasp is that people from a city tend to be more alike. Not even close. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:903144375] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>kayoticdreamz posted...</cite> <quote>what you're failing to grasp is that people from a city tend to be more alike.</quote> Not even close.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 06/13/18 4:37:16 AM #59:	kayoticdreamz posted... you cannot have 10 of X and 10 of Y and 50 of Z and say everyone gets 1 vote. Yeah you can. That's literally what democracy means. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:903144387] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>kayoticdreamz posted...</cite> <quote>you cannot have 10 of X and 10 of Y and 50 of Z and say everyone gets 1 vote.</quote> Yeah you can. That's literally what democracy means.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 06/13/18 4:37:55 AM #60:	kayoticdreamz posted... the 50 of Z will dominate every single time. which given the fact democrats are still trying impeach trump, they probably want this as they are still salty that they lost with a candidate that ironically bought and paid for her nominee(true democracy at work folks) City Dwellers aren't all Z's. They are A through Z's all voting differently. And we can clearly see that it is rural conservatives that vote in cult-like formation much more than any city dwellers.. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:903144406] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>kayoticdreamz posted...</cite> <quote>the 50 of Z will dominate every single time. which given the fact democrats are still trying impeach trump, they probably want this as they are still salty that they lost with a candidate that ironically bought and paid for her nominee(true democracy at work folks)</quote> City Dwellers aren't all Z's. They are A through Z's all voting differently. And we can clearly see that it is rural conservatives that vote in cult-like formation much more than any city dwellers..</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 06/13/18 4:42:09 AM #61:	kayoticdreamz posted... its why i say NY, CA, and TX would under a direct election system become the only places that matter. They would matter proportionally. And what do state borders have to do with anything? Upstate NY is completely different from NYC, which is completely different from Long Island. Rural Texas is completely different from Dallas, which is completely different from Austin. President would need to campaign towards all three parts of New York and all those parts of Texas in order to appeal to the most amount of people. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:903144524] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>kayoticdreamz posted...</cite> <quote>its why i say NY, CA, and TX would under a direct election system become the only places that matter.</quote> They would matter proportionally. And what do state borders have to do with anything? Upstate NY is completely different from NYC, which is completely different from Long Island. Rural Texas is completely different from Dallas, which is completely different from Austin. President would need to campaign towards all three parts of New York and all those parts of Texas in order to appeal to the most amount of people.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CarlGrimes 06/13/18 4:47:14 AM #62:	Barenziah Boy Toy posted... kayoticdreamz posted... what you're failing to grasp is that people from a city tend to be more alike. Not even close. Sure, it is all by chance they are deep blue and blindly vote democrat each election. --- You'll get a funeral if you don't wise up and call me....Carl Poppa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aM9Ch97U8 <cite>CarlGrimes posted [p:903144657] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>kayoticdreamz posted...</cite> <quote>what you're failing to grasp is that people from a city tend to be more alike.</quote> Not even close.</quote> Sure, it is all by chance they are deep blue and blindly vote democrat each election.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Barenziah Boy Toy 06/13/18 4:57:21 AM #63:	CarlGrimes posted... Sure, it is all by chance they are deep blue and blindly vote democrat each election. They vote for the candidate that best serves the majority of people. Cities represent the widest swath of people across the country. So it's not that cities are blind. It's because cities have the highest probability of NOT voting blind. --- You don't need a treaty to have free trade. M Rothbard {Self-Hating Token Asian of the Ivory Tower's Zionist Elite} <cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted [p:903144934] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>CarlGrimes posted...</cite> <quote>Sure, it is all by chance they are deep blue and blindly vote democrat each election.</quote> They vote for the candidate that best serves the majority of people. Cities represent the widest swath of people across the country. So it's not that cities are blind. It's because cities have the highest probability of NOT voting blind.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CarlGrimes 06/13/18 5:03:03 AM #64:	Barenziah Boy Toy posted... CarlGrimes posted... Sure, it is all by chance they are deep blue and blindly vote democrat each election. They vote for the candidate that best serves the majority of people. Cities represent the widest swath of people across the country. So it's not that cities are blind. It's because cities have the highest probability of NOT voting blind. Lol, whatever you say. --- You'll get a funeral if you don't wise up and call me....Carl Poppa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aM9Ch97U8 <cite>CarlGrimes posted [p:903145061] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>Barenziah Boy Toy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CarlGrimes posted...</cite> <quote>Sure, it is all by chance they are deep blue and blindly vote democrat each election.</quote> They vote for the candidate that best serves the majority of people. Cities represent the widest swath of people across the country. So it's not that cities are blind. It's because cities have the highest probability of NOT voting blind.</quote> Lol, whatever you say.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sonico80085 06/13/18 5:18:46 AM #65:	You would have voted in whoever the Russians wanted you to vote in <cite>Sonico80085 posted [p:903145467] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>You would have voted in whoever the Russians wanted you to vote in</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SavenForever 06/13/18 5:59:51 AM #66:	LightningAce11 posted... Would people have still voted Trump? I know many people voted him because in their eyes he was the lesser of the two evils. Probably not. If Bernie was the nominee, he would probably be the President now. --- https://imgur.com/aFt7pKH <cite>SavenForever posted [p:903146615] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>LightningAce11 posted...</cite> <quote>Would people have still voted Trump? I know many people voted him because in their eyes he was the lesser of the two evils.</quote> Probably not. If Bernie was the nominee, he would probably be the President now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Crazyman93 06/13/18 6:08:07 PM #67:	SavenForever posted... LightningAce11 posted... Would people have still voted Trump? I know many people voted him because in their eyes he was the lesser of the two evils. Probably not. If Bernie was the nominee, he would probably be the President now. And we'd be here listening to all the Bernie Bros bitch that Congress won't let him do anything he wants to do. Sanders is a Democrat in name only. I mean, really so is Hillary, but Sanders is an independent who tried to run on a main party. And the only thing Republicans and Democrats ever consistently agree on it's "we're not sharing the pie with anyone else." --- let's lubricate friction material! ~nickels, Cars & Trucks <cite>Crazyman93 posted [p:903189252] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>SavenForever posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LightningAce11 posted...</cite> <quote>Would people have still voted Trump? I know many people voted him because in their eyes he was the lesser of the two evils.</quote> Probably not. If Bernie was the nominee, he would probably be the President now.</quote> And we'd be here listening to all the Bernie Bros bitch that Congress won't let him do anything he wants to do. Sanders is a Democrat in name only. I mean, really so is Hillary, but Sanders is an independent who tried to run on a main party. And the only thing Republicans and Democrats ever consistently agree on it's "we're not sharing the pie with anyone else."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Coffeebeanz 06/13/18 6:08:57 PM #68:	I would have voted for any Democrat candidate except Hillary. --- Physician [Internal Medicine] <cite>Coffeebeanz posted [p:903189299] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>I would have voted for any Democrat candidate except Hillary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkTransient 06/13/18 6:13:01 PM #69:	If we assume the Republicans hadn't also chosen a better candidate, then OP's claim is 100% true. --- http://www.facebook.com/loaocos/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAfJB3KYYDg <cite>DarkTransient posted [p:903189586] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>If we assume the Republicans hadn't also chosen a better candidate, then OP's claim is 100% true.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Giblet_Enjoyer 06/14/18 6:22:13 PM #70:	kayoticdreamz posted... you cannot have 10 of X and 10 of Y and 50 of Z and say everyone gets 1 vote. Absolute horseshit nonsense, just because you don't like what the outcome would be doesn't magically mean that individuals are voting twice. It would literally be 1 vote per person and you're acting like anyone belonging to the majority gets multiple votes? Just...the absolute state --- He which make friends with scorpion, soon come to find out what a scorpion does - they bite people with its tail --ancient Chinese proverb <cite>Giblet_Enjoyer posted [p:903266145] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>kayoticdreamz posted...</cite> <quote>you cannot have 10 of X and 10 of Y and 50 of Z and say everyone gets 1 vote.</quote> Absolute horseshit nonsense, just because you don't like what the outcome would be doesn't magically mean that individuals are voting twice. It would literally be 1 vote per person and you're acting like anyone belonging to the majority gets multiple votes? Just...the absolute state</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/14/18 6:35:39 PM #71:	Why are we even entertaining this "If NYC wasn't included" nonsense? Hillary Clinton didn't win NYC by 3 million votes. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903267047] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>Why are we even entertaining this "If NYC wasn't included" nonsense? Hillary Clinton didn't win NYC by 3 million votes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
southcoast09 06/14/18 6:37:43 PM #72:	People voted for trump because we didnt want a direct continuation of the same globalist bullshit that we would have gotten from ANY candidate besides President Trump. We are finished with insider politics and we are finished with putting immigrants before our own. --- Stand for the anthem or sit for the game! <cite>southcoast09 posted [p:903267169] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>People voted for trump because we didnt want a direct continuation of the same globalist bullshit that we would have gotten from ANY candidate besides President Trump. We are finished with insider politics and we are finished with putting immigrants before our own.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Peter_Giffyndor 06/14/18 6:39:14 PM #73:	No, it was HER TURN DAMN IT!!! <cite>Peter_Giffyndor posted [p:903267263] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>No, it was HER TURN DAMN IT!!!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
K181 06/14/18 6:43:43 PM #74:	I stand by the notion that Clinton was the worst Democrat and Trump was one of the worst Republicans to run as well, making 2016 the election where some shitty candidate had to win. Clinton - huge amount of baggage, very energetic base against her, very low party support outside of the insiders, and extremely low interest candidate other than the fact that she's a woman. She won the popular vote, and yet the share of the Democratic vote decreased dramatically and she failed to utterly stick to any issue other than the fact that she wasn't Trump. Trump - energized a segment of the GOP, but turned off a huge number of voters as well and created a gigantic proportion that was fully against him at every step. With the exception of the creep show that was Cruz, I honestly believe that essentially any other Republican would've done as well, if not better, than Trump overall. For all the talk of the huge amount of voters he brought in, his proportion of the popular vote was about similar to McCain and Romney accounting for the increase in the overall electorate size. Not really tangible evidence to show that he was hugely more popular than other GOPers would've been. --- Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, I could care less. <cite>K181 posted [p:903267527] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>I stand by the notion that Clinton was the worst Democrat and Trump was one of the worst Republicans to run as well, making 2016 the election where some shitty candidate had to win. Clinton - huge amount of baggage, very energetic base against her, very low party support outside of the insiders, and extremely low interest candidate other than the fact that she's a woman. She won the popular vote, and yet the share of the Democratic vote decreased dramatically and she failed to utterly stick to any issue other than the fact that she wasn't Trump. Trump - energized a segment of the GOP, but turned off a huge number of voters as well and created a gigantic proportion that was fully against him at every step. With the exception of the creep show that was Cruz, I honestly believe that essentially any other Republican would've done as well, if not better, than Trump overall. For all the talk of the huge amount of voters he brought in, his proportion of the popular vote was about similar to McCain and Romney accounting for the increase in the overall electorate size. Not really tangible evidence to show that he was hugely more popular than other GOPers would've been.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 06/14/18 6:45:17 PM #75:	To answer the topic question, the margin of victory that Trump had is so narrow in terms of votes that of course any small change could potentially have made him lose. Hillary Clinton could have made some small adjustments and won (say her spirit cooking divined this universe). We don't need to look any further than the Republican primaries to see that Trump has it in him to beat generic political opponents, so the idea that Democrats putting up a sensible centrist would have lured Republican voters is flawed imo. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:903267607] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote>To answer the topic question, the margin of victory that Trump had is so narrow in terms of votes that of course any small change could potentially have made him lose. Hillary Clinton could have made some small adjustments and won (say her spirit cooking divined this universe). We don't need to look any further than the Republican primaries to see that Trump has it in him to beat generic political opponents, so the idea that Democrats putting up a sensible centrist would have lured Republican voters is flawed imo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrisbeeDude 06/14/18 6:49:24 PM #76:	Fluttershy462 posted... Should have been Bernie Why? Voters wanted him less than hilary --- If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:903267874] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>Fluttershy462 posted...</cite> <quote>Should have been Bernie</quote> Why? Voters wanted him less than hilary</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
southcoast09 06/14/18 6:52:12 PM #77:	FrisbeeDude posted... Fluttershy462 posted... Should have been Bernie Why? Voters wanted him less than hilary No, they clearly didnt. The dnc committed treason to secure the nomination for Hillary. They wouldnt have had to break any laws if she was beating Bernie fair and square. Dont get me wrong, because sanders was the most dangerous candidate that our nation may have ever had. He served his purpose in dividing the Democratic Party, though. --- Stand for the anthem or sit for the game! <cite>southcoast09 posted [p:903268070] in Honestly, ... [t:76705783]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Fluttershy462 posted...</cite> <quote>Should have been Bernie</quote> Why? Voters wanted him less than hilary</quote> No, they clearly didnt. The dnc committed treason to secure the nomination for Hillary. They wouldnt have had to break any laws if she was beating Bernie fair and square. Dont get me wrong, because sanders was the most dangerous candidate that our nation may have ever had. He served his purpose in dividing the Democratic Party, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Honestly, if the dems had chosen a better candidate instead of Hillary (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Honestly, if the dems had chosen a better candidate instead of Hillary